People are really worried about the future of Social Security. To listen to the talking heads, you'd think it's an episode of "Fear Factor." Should people be afraid? Is Social Security really going to run out of money? Has it already? If it is failing, who will save the system, and if it cannot be saved, what does that mean for the average family, growing ever more gray at the temples?

So, I put it to the cards in the manner handed down to me from my mother who learned Tarot from the Gypsies.

The Significator, this is what the Tarot reading speaks to: The Knight of Swords. "Hasty action." The knight charges, sword drawn. The hothead. Emotionalism. Not thinking things through. The established order acts in haste. If we think about the Bush Administration and their record on the Weapons of Mass Destruction, they acted hastily and the Knight of Swords showed up there. In this case, we see hotheaded action once again and not well thought through. The watchword here is "Chicken Little."

The Administration is alarming the "silent majority" right on the heels of the election

Covering Card, this covers him: Ace of Wands. In this case, it is "the gift," or that which is promised. Wands are cards of the land - wood, forest, earth, the working people. This is something that has been promised.

It will be hard to tell people they will not get what they were promised and what they have paid into. It is one thing for some corporation to not make good. It is another thing for the government to "default."

Crossing Card, behind the scenes - everything has a secret side: Two of Pentacles "The Manipulator" The "operator," the guy who plays the "shell game." He plays by the rules, even if the rules are heavily in his favor and lines his pockets, and if someone ends up losing, that's the way the cookie crumbles. No matter how this goes, he is going to win because, like any broker, he gets a commission regardless of who wins and who loses.

The money men around Bush are doing their thing. They are out of touch with the people who put them in the seats of power.

The Foundation, this is below him on which he stands: Ten of Cups. This is "family." These are the people who believe in "family values." These are the people who "focus on the family." This issue gets Americans where they live and where they eat. The Administration is telling the American people it will prevent terror, but the social security issue is closer to them than terror or Iraq.

The Administration is now smack in America's heartland and this is probably the first bread-and-butter issue to capture the national consciousness in a long time. Social Security might not be much, but it was always the bedrock and fallback. If all else failed, there was always social security - what Reagan called the "safety net."

Behind, this is finished business: Six of Cups. "Childhood; things of the past." These are the things of childhood. The promises. The dreams of youth. This is the relationship of younger people to older people.

The baby boomers are beginning to get gray. Their own parents made out well enough and part of America's promise was that the next generation would also do well. It would seem the Administration, as it does away with the New Deal programs, thinks it has a mandate to Republicanize New Deal promises, but dreams of even a modest retirement run deep with this group. Moreover, the vast majority of Americans have been paying into this program for years - since childhood.

Bush misunderestimates the bedrock he has encountered.

Above, what is hanging in the air: Ace of Cups "The Gift of Self." Individuality. The Heart. The Ace of Hearts. A very good outcome hovers in the air, but it may not happen.

So far the Administration has not been able to find that lever they have always found to rally people around their programs. There is no good news in anything that the administration is saying.

People believe this is an answer. What does this cup hold?

In Front, this is right in front. Death "Change. An end to the status quo." The change that is come effects all. An end of stagnation. Karmic forces are at work.

It would seem the Administration has set the wheels into motion. The king, the commoner, the children, the cleric - none will be spared. It would seem that events are now moving on their own and not entirely in the control of the neo-cons or progressives. The genie is out of the bottle.

The Outcome, What is the outcome of all this? Page of Cups, Seven of Pentacles, Nine of Swords. One card came out with two cards seemingly refusing to let go, so in the Old World way, this is read as a basic card with two modifiers, leading to a richer meaning.

The Page of Cups is a "New Message." A fish in a cup? It is the intuitive taking form. It is self-examination. It is a card of secrets. Is this the same cup that hovered over us in "what hangs in the air?" That cup is now examined - the cup that runneth over. Once cup of plenty. The American Dream according to Bush.

Modifying this card is the Seven of Pentacles which is "Concern for the Harvest; anxiety about produce." The harvest was planted, but its fruits are in doubt. It is not that the farmer has not worked hard. Notice the staff he leans on, the same one we saw in the covering card - the Ace of Wands. This is no "welfare shirker." He is someone who believes in the story of the "Ant and the Grasshopper." He has been a good "ant." Now, as he looks in the cup, it dawns on him that he shares much with those "grasshoppers" who he once believed fell on hard times due to their own laziness and lack of planning.

We worries that despite his best effort, he will share the same fate. It isn't fair!

Nine of Swords which means "Nightmare. Despair." A card of bad omen - the death card of the Tarot deck. With the concern for the harvest and the card of bad omen, the outcome is about as bad as it gets if we are talking about harvesting seeds that were planted.

The Meanings: The Social Security situation could be a debacle all the way around. This issue touches every voter directly or indirectly and for once in a long time, "guns or butter" will resurface as an issue. In Economics 101, the student is confronted with the idea that resources are limited. A society can make weapons or it can produce food and if a lot goes into weapons, less can go into food.

Will the electorate get savvy and connect the money spent in Iraq with the Social Security shortfall? Will there be resentment in that a war uncovered no weapons of mass destruction?

The Administration's money men are chomping to get their hands on the Social Security funds, yet the Administration has not offered a plan that seems to have ignited the rank and file. Social Security was never meant to be speculative. And how good are the neo-cons at managing money? It is not exactly great news for the Administration to come in and say the fund is bankrupt when the previous party left a balanced budget and the current Administration has gone trillions into debt.

All the cards are very interesting, but I find the story in the Significator, Foundation, Behind, and In Front spread: that is, Knight of Swords, Ten of Cups, Six of Cups, Death. All, but the Knight, are cards having to do with family - childhood, growth, and death. The Social Security fund, for all the grumbling, is an emotional "given," and to take it away, or curtail it, or put at risk when people have paid in will be seen as a major failure of the Administration.

The Administration will bring good news of how benefits will not be affected. Perhaps. However, the great Democratic bloc has always taken this for granted.

The Administration has not shown much fiscal responsibility and is vulnerable to charges of being poor money managers who rush into things, only to be proven wrong in the end. Yet, the Democrats seem to not be doing any better.

The issue is not so much about money here, but about heart. The Two of Pentacles and the Seven of Pentacles are the only money cards. The predominant suit is cups - matters of the heart and family. "Family Values."

The Administration may be paying lip service to family values, but it will not be forgotten if income checks look like they may head south, or if Wall Street makes windfall profits and here the Bush Administration is truly vulnerable for they do not have a strong, clear, believable, message that is playing in Middle America.

Maybe what the voters sense is that the politicians don't know what to do and maybe the voters hear (the fish and) the message.

Trickle down economics was sold to Democratic voters, who have been steadily and increasingly supporting neo-cons, because all yachts will rise.

In the 1980's we saw hostile takeovers and the likes of Milliken and Boesky and the words "junk bond," "greenmail" and "hostile takeover" came into our language. Buccaneer capitalists took over corporations and got a hold of their pension funds, which they stripped out.

Any of this sound familiar?

We have a group that is privatizing government. There is a hostile take-over under way. We have seen this before and now it is happening on a grand scale.

I suggest, if this is a bit hazy, rent "Wall Street" on DVD and see just what the cards hold in store.

How to talk to a Christian -

because we have to, whether we want to or not.

Your Reptilian brain is all the rage lately. Arianna Huffington, Tom Atlee and Thom Hartmann have all published work recently that addresses the Bush/Cheney talent for getting into your primitive self and getting it to do what they want. This is important information that I first encountered reading the works of Carl Sagan. One of my greatest regrets is that I never got to discuss the Reptile self with him. As all those who have come after him have done, Dr. Sagan thought we should get over it. The Reptilian brain to him was something to overcome, an inferior part of our psyche that gets in the way of logic, so it must be suppressed. That's only partly correct.

It does get in the way of logic. The mistake is in thinking you can suppress it. That inner beast is coming out one way or another. You either work with it or it works against you. If you want to survive, you'd better make friends with it. We won't get around the Radical Right just by being who we are. In a very real way, we are acting as the "liberal elite" they say we are. We are appealing to reason where no reason yet exists.

Arianna put it succinctly:

"Thanks to the Bush campaign's unremitting fear-mongering, millions of voters are reacting not with their linear and logical left brain but with their lizard brain and their more emotional right brain.

What's more, people in a fog of fear are more likely to respond to someone whose primary means of communication is in the nonverbal realm, neither logical nor language-based. (Sound like any presidential candidate you know?)

Deep in the brain lies the amygdala, an almond-sized region that generates fear. When this fear state is activated, the amygdala springs into action. Before you are even consciously aware that you are afraid, your lizard brain responds by clicking into survival mode. No time to assess the situation, no time to look at the facts, just: fight, flight or freeze."

Tom Atlee asked if we can "move past reptilian logic". The simple answer is "NO". There is no "reptilian logic". There is only reptilian instinct and that instinct shuts down the part of the mind that has logic. It is entirely reactive. Note the tendency to call Bush's cohorts "reactionary". It's pre-verbal, so you can't talk your way around it. It has no language. It's ritualistic, fond of habit and suspicious of change.

Hartmann crafted a nice crash course in brain development, thus:

"We humans, being the product of a long evolutionary process, really have three brains. And, as the Bush psy-ops folks know, politicians who win campaigns do so because they speak to all three of those brains.

First there's the most primitive of our brains, sometimes referred to as the "reptilian brain" because we share it in common with reptiles like alligators and komodo dragons. The reptile brain has a singular focus: survival. It doesn't think in abstract terms, and doesn't feel complex emotions. Instead, it's responsible for fight-or-flight, hunger and fear, attack or run. It's also non-verbal - you can stimulate it with the right words, but it operates purely at the level of visceral stimulus-response.

The second brain is one we share with the animals that came along after reptiles - mammals. The mammalian brain - sometimes referred to as the Limbic Brain because it extends around and off of the reptilian brain in a dog-leg shape that resembles a limb - handles complex emotions like love, indignation, compassion, envy, and hope. Anybody who's worked with animals or had a pet knows that mammals share these emotions with humans, because we share this brain. While a snake can't feel shame or enthusiasm, it's completely natural for a dog or cat. And, like the reptile brain, the mammalian brain can also be stimulated indirectly by words, and is also non-verbal. It expresses itself exclusively in the form of feelings, although these are more often felt in the heart than the gut.

The third brain - the neocortex ("new" cortex) - is something we share with the higher apes, although ours is a bit more sophisticated. Resting over the limbic brain (which is, in turn, atop the reptilian brain), our neocortex is where we process abstract thought, words and symbols, logic and time." [emphasis added]

The neocortex is divided into two hemispheres.

Your right brain operates in a non-linear, pre-verbal way that "thinks" in symbols and pictures. It works in conjunction with your reptile brain to form your intuitive abilities. It loves ritual and symbolism. Your hunches, your "aha" moments, your precognitive dreams, premonitions, ability to view remote scenes and other "psychic" abilities originate here, and are normal functions of the human brain that have been suppressed in our culture so that they are limited to the realm of the priesthood. A person in touch with these abilities is hard to control with laws or commandments and will trust their own intuition over any authority. One function of religion has been to direct and control these abilities toward a common goal. The tricky part is in choosing that goal. Knowing who made the choice and why is important. We'll talk about that in Part III

Your left brain is where you "think". It's the source of your ability to use sequential logic, your words and your ability to reason. Our culture is in love with it's left neocortex. The left neocortex likes things neat and orderly. It wants things to make sense. It enables us to think and read and plan, so there's a lot to love about it. The problem is that it isn't the only brain in town. Acting as if it were causes problems. The trick in life, as in politics, is to get all these brains working together. Neglect any one of them at your peril. Nurture them all, and you'll achieve more than you ever thought possible.

Back to politics now. Hartmann dissects Cheney's mastery in the campaign:

When Dick Cheney recently took John Kerry's comment about sensitivity in the war on terror out of context and spun it for his audiences, he was performing a psychologically masterful manipulation of all three brains.

Only ridicule with a subtext of fear has this power.

"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney said, firing first the thinking brain ("too many wars") and then the limbic brain ("for our wishes[/hopes/ideals]").
And then he went for the reptile brain: "...but not one of them was won by being sensitive."

The comment brought an instant response of laughter - an emotional and involuntary response, as Freud pointed out, that's the result of the neocortex thinking it's moving logically along in one direction (a discussion of too many wars) and then suddenly getting derailed ("but not one of them was won by being sensitive") from that thought. This sudden derailment - known among comedians as the "punch line" - causes the thinking brain to be momentarily confused and triggers a response known as laughter that comes involuntarily from the limbic mammalian brain. (This is why comedy almost always involves misdirection, like in the old Red Skelton classic, "I just flew in from Chicago...and, boy, are my arms tired!")

But then, in a brilliant coup de grÃ¢ce, Cheney spoke directly to his listener's reptilian brain, the part that most powerfully controls our behaviors because it constantly is vigilant to maintain our survival. "Those that threaten us and kill innocents around the world," he said, arousing the reptilian awareness of threat, "do not need to be treated more sensitively, they need to be destroyed."

To reinforce this message to his listener's most primitive instincts, Cheney continued to invoke the word "sensitive" a half- dozen more times, always wrapping it in surprise and survival.

Not only is this among the most sophisticated of psychological warfare operations, in this case it was also one of the most immoral, since Cheney was quoting Kerry out of context and, thus, basing his entire premise upon what was essentially a lie.

But the deed was done, because all three brains had been touched.

No matter how much the Kerry campaign tried to argue to the thinking neocortex that his words meant we should be sensitive to the needs and values of our allies and not sensitive to our enemies, his response never reached the limbic or reptilian brains of his or Cheney's listeners. Kerry's response - "It's sad they can only be negative" - was one that only reached the thinking neocortex. It didn't provoke a laugh, driving it into the limbic brain, and it didn't address Bush/Cheney failures to keep Americans safe, the main issue of the reptilian brain.

The simple reality is that issues framed in intellect will never trump issues framed in emotions. And to have maximum power, those emotions must include the limbic brain feelings of hope and idealism as well as the reptilian brain instincts for survival and safety. [emphasis added]

Framing is the key. We have to learn to speak lizard/limbic/logic if we want to win.

People speak of Hitler's blueprint and suggest "Mein Kampf" is something that should have alerted humanity to Hitler's desire to rule the world. Yet, if one goes to the library and actually reads it, it is mainly Hitler unbounded anger at target groups.

Marx does not write with the kind of vitriol that Hitler does. Disagree, or not, Marx lays out his ideas. Hitler lays out his hates. Making sure that no issue comes from the womb of someone he detests, is the Hitlerian view of things. Enemies of the Reich did include homosexuals and there was the view expressed in "Triumph of the Will" that a certain group was destined to rule and right in their desire to sterilize and kill those who they believed were inferior.

I have watched Nazis and neo-Nazis and Nazis-in-training erupt into terrible tirades - that the world will be better when people of a certain genetic background are exterminated, or people with sexual desires, that make the Nazi feel uncomfortable, are prevented from expressing themselves.

The United States achieved moral leadership in the post-World War Two era when its leaders argued the policy that our government would not tolerate intolerance. It staked out the high ground of liberty.

As I said in an earlier essay, Reagan turned Marx on his side, when Reagan said government has never created anything. That's is what Marx said of capitalism.

Corporations are concentrating more and more, into less and less - or at least fewer and fewer. As corporations squeeze out workers in the name of efficiency, they undercut the very consumers would could/would buy from the corporations. Looking for new consumers, the corporation have their own expansionist policies to seek new markets as they have squeezed dry their existing markets in order to create more capital - which at the leading business schools is called "capital formation."

Where the hatred comes in is at this point. The group the squeezes workers out of jobs justifies itself that it is doing this to "welfare shirkers," "liberals," "gays," and others who are not worthy to breath the oxygen of this planet.

We have seen it in history. I recall remarking, once, how beautiful Paris is. My host quipped. "Yes. We attacked every nation around and looted them and with that kind of money, its easy to build a city like this." Same with Hitler's Reich. It's a kind of Attila the Hun mentality that in the two prior centuries was called imperialism. And, this behavior was also called "white man's burden." In this concept, the burden of the white man is to subjugate another people and take their resources away. It is even known as "Gunboat Diplomacy" and Reagan loved the buckaroo image of America and sold it to a generation of people too young to know to the horror of war and so undereducated that they did not look into what imperialism really is.

Part of every dictatorship or imperialistic expansion is helped by creating a "national enemy." Reagan trotted out "godless Communism." Would it have been nearly so horrible had it been "Christian Communism?"

It was essential to attack other nations in the war on terrorism, otherwise people would be all dressed up with nowhere to go. Afghanistan was not enough. Iraq was needed and Sadam was hated and so the hating binge begins.

Progressives, however, have logic on their side and as far as debating the right wing, we must avoid getting into the yelling matches that are part of beer hall politics and tradition As a friend once said, "never get into a farting contest with a horse's ass." or horse's "Rsassy."

Please forgive me for the extended excerpts here, but I think that here, in the West, fed by the corporate media's coverage of military press conferences and the Western bloggers' fears of what might be and what might yet come, it's important to hear from the voices we don't hear -- it's important for us to realize that we are not getting the whole story on Iraq. (Unless noted, all emphasis is added.)

I literally had chills going up and down my spine as I watched Abdul Aziz Al Hakeem of Iranian-inclined SCIRI dropping his ballot into a box. Behind him, giving moral support and her vote, was what I can only guess to be his wife. She was shrouded literally from head to foot and only her eyes peeped out of the endless sea of black. She stuffed her ballot in the box with black-gloved hands and submissively followed a very confident Hakeem. E. turned to me with a smile and a wink, "That might be you in a couple of years..." I promptly threw a sofa cushion at him.

Most of our acquaintances (Sunni and Shia) didn't vote. My cousin, who is Shia, didn't vote because he felt he didn't really have 'representation' on the lists, as he called it. I laughed when he said that, "But you have your pick of at least 40 different Shia parties!" I teased, winking at his wife. I understood what he meant though. He's a secular, educated, non-occupation Iraqi before he's Sunni or Shia- he's more concerned with having someone who wants to end the occupation than someone Shia.

We're hearing about various strange happenings at different voting areas. They say that several areas in northern Iraq (some Assyrian and other Christian areas) weren't allowed to vote. They also say that 300 different ballot boxes from all over the country were disqualified (mainly from Mosul) because a large number of the vote ballots had "Saddam" written on them. In other areas there's talk of Badir's Brigade people having bought the ballots to vote, and while the people of Falloojeh weren't allowed to vote, people say that the identities of Falloojans were temporarily 'borrowed' for voting purposes. The stories are endless.

In spite of that, we're all watching for the results carefully. When the 'elected' government takes control, will they set a timetable for American withdrawal? That would be a shocker considering none of the current parties would be able to remain in power without being forcefully backed by America with tanks and troops. We hear American politicians repeatedly saying that America will not withdraw until Iraq can secure itself. When will that happen? Our current National Guard or "Haress il Watani" are fondly called "Haress il Wathani" or "Infidel Guard" by people in the streets. On top of it all, to be one of them is considered such a disgrace by the general population that they have to wear masks so that none of them can be identified by neighbors and friends.

The results won't really matter when so many people boycotted the elections. No matter what the number say, the reality of the situation is that there are millions of Iraqis who will refuse to submit to an occupation government. After almost two years of occupation, and miserable living conditions, we want our country back.

Six days later, river offers a slice of life that is so benign, yet so chilling:

"Did you hear about the election results?" E. asked Abu Ammar. Abu Ammar shook his head in the affirmative and squashed his cigarette with a slippered foot. "Well, we were expecting it." He shrugged his shoulders and continued, "Most Shia voted for list 169. They were blaring it out at the Husseiniya near our house the night of the elections. I was there for evening prayer." A Husseiniya is a sort of mosque for Shia. We had heard that many of them were campaigning for list 169- the Sistani-backed list.

I shook my head and sighed. "So do you still think the Americans want to turn Iraq into another America? You said last year that if we gave them a chance, Baghdad would look like New York." I said in reference to a conversation we had last year. E. gave me a wary look and tried to draw my attention to some onions, "Oh hey- look at the onions- do we have onions?"

Abu Ammar shook his head and sighed, "Well if we're New York or we're Baghdad or we're hell, it's not going to make a difference to me. I'll still sell my vegetables here."

I nodded and handed over the bags to be weighed. "Well... they're going to turn us into another Iran. You know list 169 means we might turn into Iran." Abu Ammar pondered this a moment as he put the bags on the old brass scale and adjusted the weights.

"And is Iran so bad?" He finally asked. Well no, Abu Ammar, I wanted to answer, it's not bad for *you* - you're a man... if anything your right to several temporary marriages, a few permanent ones and the right to subdue females will increase. Why should it be so bad? Instead I was silent. It's not a good thing to criticize Iran these days. I numbly reached for the bags he handed me, trying to rise out of that sinking feeling that overwhelmed me when the results were first made public.

It's not about a Sunni government or a Shia government- it's about the possibility of an Iranian-modeled Iraq. Many Shia are also appalled with the results of the elections. There's talk of Sunnis being marginalized by the elections but that isn't the situation. It's not just Sunnis- it's moderate Shia and secular people in general who have been marginalized.

The list is frightening- Da'awa, SCIRI, Chalabi, Hussein Shahristani and a whole collection of pro-Iran political figures and clerics. They are going to have a primary role in writing the new constitution. There's talk of Shari'a, or Islamic law, having a very primary role in the new constitution. The problem is, whose Shari'a? Shari'a for many Shia differs from that of Sunni Shari'a. And what about all the other religions? What about Christians and Mendiyeen?

Is anyone surprised that the same people who came along with the Americans â€“ the same puppets who all had a go at the presidency last year â€“ are the ones who came out on top in the elections? Jaffari, Talbani, Barazani, Hakim, Allawi, Chalabi... exiles, convicted criminals and war lords. Welcome to the new Iraq.

Now we're being 'officially' told that the weapons never existed. After Iraq has been devastated, we're told it's a mistake. You look around Baghdad and it is heart-breaking. The streets are ravaged, the sky is a bizarre grayish-bluish color- a combination of smoke from fires and weapons and smog from cars and generators. There is an endless wall that seems to suddenly emerge in certain areas to protect the Green Zoners... There is common look to the people on the streets- under the masks of fear, anger and suspicion, there's also a haunting look of uncertainty and indecision. Where is the country going? How long will it take for things to even have some vague semblance of normality? When will we ever feel safe?

A question poses it self at this point- why don't they let the scientists go if the weapons don't exist? Why do they have Iraqi scientists like Huda Ammash, Rihab Taha and Amir Al Saadi still in prison? Perhaps they are waiting for those scientists to conveniently die in prison? That way- they won't be able to talk about the various torture techniques and interrogation tactics...

I hope Americans feel good about taking their war on terror to foreign soil. For bringing the terrorists to Iraq- Chalabi, Allawi, Zarqawi, the Hakeems... How is our current situation going to secure America? How is a complete generation that is growing up in fear and chaos going to view Americans ten years from now? Does anyone ask that? After September 11, because of what a few fanatics did, Americans decided to become infected with a collective case of xenophobia... Yet after all Iraqis have been through under the occupation, we're expected to be tolerant and grateful. Why? Because we get more wheat in our diets?

Terror isn't just worrying about a plane hitting a skyscraper...terrorism is being caught in traffic and hearing the crack of an AK-47 a few meters away because the National Guard want to let an American humvee or Iraqi official through. Terror is watching your house being raided and knowing that the silliest thing might get you dragged away to Abu Ghraib where soldiers can torture, beat and kill. Terror is that first moment after a series of machine-gun shots, when you lift your head frantically to make sure your loved ones are still in one piece. Terror is trying to pick the shards of glass resulting from a nearby explosion out of the living-room couch and trying not to imagine what would have happened if a person had been sitting there.

The weapons never existed. It's like having a loved one sentenced to death for a crime they didn't commit- having your country burned and bombed beyond recognition, almost. Then, after two years of grieving for the lost people, and mourning the lost sovereignty, we're told we were innocent of harboring those weapons. We were never a threat to America...

Hundreds of women, men and children have died in attacks by armed groups. In some cases, civilian deaths have resulted from indiscriminate attacks on specific targets, such as police stations. In others, civilians have themselves been the objects of attack. In one instance, more than 100 civilians were killed on 2 March 2004 in nine coordinated attacks in Karbala and Baghdad as millions of Muslims were marking 'Ashoura, the holiest day in the Shi'a Muslim calendar.(23)

Women campaigning to protect women's rights have been threatened, kidnapped and killed by members of armed groups in Iraq. In several cases, the perpetrators have identified themselves as members of Islamist groups, linking their attack to the women's activism for women's rights. In other cases, their activism appears to have contributed to the attack on them. A recent report on Iraq by Women for Women International(24) is dedicated to "Iraqi women who have been targeted merely because of their leadership activities, the positions they held, or for being otherwise visible in public" and lists the names of several who have been kidnapped or killed over the past year.(25)

Members of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) have reported threats received because of their advocacy of women's rights. Chairperson Yanar Mohammed reported that in January and February 2004 she received several death threats by e-mail from an Islamist group known as the Army of Sahaba. She asked US officials for protection, but was reportedly told they had more urgent matters to address. Yanar Mohammed and her colleagues at the Baghdad office of OWFI were forced to avoid public appearances and wear bullet-proof vests.(26)

Several women's centres established by the US authorities to provide support for women, including literacy programs, IT training and political awareness raising, have had to reduce or review their activities following threats and attacks.

Amira Salih, the manager of a US-funded women's centre in Karbala reportedly stepped down after she received repeated death threats.(27) Another women's rights activist from Karbala told Amnesty International that in April 2004 she was stopped by Iraqi police in front of a women's centre where she wanted to attend a meeting. A police officer advised her that this was an unsafe location and that she should not enter.(28)

The killing of US lawyer Fern Holland and Iraqi assistant Salwa Oumashi in an armed attack on 9 March 2004 added to the climate of threat and insecurity experienced by many women working for women's rights. Fern Holland was a civilian employee of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the US-headed body that governed Iraq until the handover of power to an interim Iraqi administration in June 2004. She played a key role in supporting US-funded women's rights projects in the governorates of Babil, Karbala and Najaf, including by setting up women's centres in Hilla and Karbala. Although those responsible for killing the two women have not been identified, it is widely believed that both were targeted because of their promotion of women's rights.

The US authorities have frequently announced their support for women in Iraq, which has included the allocation of US$10 million for the Women's Democracy Initiative for Iraq.(29) However, some women's rights activists have expressed uneasiness about women's organizations receiving financial or other support from US government bodies. One Iraqi woman working for a women's NGO that receives US-funding explained: "Our society doesn't understand our relation with Americans, and that's why I and all of us are afraid. Anyone dealing with Americans â€“ friendship, work â€“ they're considered a spy".(30)

and

Between March 2003 and mid-January 2005, the Iraq Body Count had recorded between 15,300 and 17,500 "media-reported civilian deaths" resulting from US-led military intervention.(39) A much higher figure was given in a sample-based study published in October 2004 in the UK medical journal, the Lancet, which estimated that "about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq". (40) In response to the estimate in the Lancet, the Iraq Body Count pointed out that it counted only civilian deaths and considered its own figures to be an "underestimate of the true position".(41)

Women have also been at risk of torture or ill-treatment as detainees in the custody of US-led forces. Reports about the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison and other US detention centres in Iraq have included allegations that women have been subjected to sexual abuse, possibly including rape.

Several women detainees have spoken to Amnesty International after their release from detention, on condition of anonymity. They reported beatings, threats of rape, humiliating treatment and long periods of solitary confinement.

Other section headings include Violence in the family, "Honour crimes", Female genital mutilation, and Violence in marriage, which tells of this "marriage" conflict:

Nineteen-year-old "Fatima" was shot in the legs by her husband in front of her family and their neighbours on 21 May 2003. Married at the age of 12, she was treated as a servant and regularly beaten in her husband's family home. She told Amnesty International that she tried to run away to her own family, but her husband came and said she should go back. When she refused he became very angry and took a piece of wood to beat her. It broke, so he grew even angrier and took his gun and shot her. Despite the number of eyewitnesses and the seriousness of the crime, neither the family nor the hospital reported the case to the police and the husband was not arrested.

Forced marriages, Impunity for violence in marriage, Leniency in 'honour killings', and The right to education, which includes this shocker:

Iraq's education system before 1990 was considered one of the best in the region: education was free, and enrolment and literacy rates were high. However, the 1990-91 Gulf war and the subsequent economic sanctions led to the rapid deterioration of the education sector. Iraq's literacy rate in 2003 was among the lowest in the region, according to a survey of education in the Arab states by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).(128) A sample survey conducted in 2000 showed that only 76.3 per cent of children aged six to 11 were reported to be attending primary school; 31.2 per cent of girls in this age group were not in school, compared with 17.5 per cent of boys. The gender gap was more pronounced in rural than in urban areas.(129)

The results of the survey of 1,000 Iraqi women in Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra, major political and commercial centers in Iraq, was unveiled in a report entitled "Windows of Opportunity: The Pursuit of Gender Equality in Post-War Iraq." Among the key results:

94% of women surveyed want to secure legal rights for women.

84% of women want the right to vote on the final constitution.

Nearly 80% of women believe that their participation in local and national councils should not be limited.

"History has shown that when women play a role in the formation of new governments, those nations are more stable and more successful in the long run," said Women for Women International's founder and CEO Zainab Salbi. "Many Iraqi leaders have claimed that women do not want to be involved in the reconstruction process. This survey clearly shows that women overwhelmingly believe they should have a seat at the table."

The most unexpected result of the survey is that despite increasing violence, particularly violence against women, 90.6% of Iraqi women reported that they are hopeful about their future.

Then again, there are those first-hand accounts that reveal a lot more anxiety about the fundamentalist track Iraqi politics are revealing. Take, for another example, Housan Mahmoud's alarm:

I am an Iraqi woman, and I am boycotting the elections. Women who do vote will be voting for an enslaved future. Surely, say those who support these elections, after decades of tyranny, here at last is a form of democracy, imperfect, but democracy nevertheless?

In reality, these elections are, for Iraq's women, little more than a cruel joke. Amid the suicide attacks, kidnappings and U.S.-led military assaults since Saddam Hussein's fall, the little-reported phenomenon is the sharp increase in the persecution of Iraqi women. Women are the new victims of Islamic groups intent on restoring a medieval barbarity and of a political establishment that cares little for women's empowerment.

Having for years enjoyed greater rights than other Middle East women, women in Iraq are losing even their basic freedoms -- the right to choose their clothes, the right to love or marry whom they want. Of course women suffered under Saddam. I fled his cruel regime. I personally witnessed much brutality but the subjugation of women was never a Baath Party goal. What we are seeing is deeply worrying: a reviled occupation and an openly reactionary Islamic armed insurrection taking Iraq into a new dark age.

This is the quagmire we find ourselves in now. Aside from the concerns we now face to our security due to an unstable, fundamentalist-terrorist-ridden Iraq, we've also set these fundamentalists free to set the tone and take Iraq back to a dark ages.

So what now? Do we stay as occupiers, kll thousands of more people, and further harden the hatred for America, while overextending our overburdened military -- even while North Korea and other malicious actors ponder what they might do with an America that is too distracted, too confused and too overextended to do anything? Or do we pull out, grateful for enough stability for the Halliburtons and oil conglomerates to make their billions, and leave the women to fend for themselves from terror in their own homes?

It's really been quite demoralizing, reading and hearing and seeing so much activity, so much rhetoric, so much strange thinking from what we call "the right." I find it hard to watch the news, to read the stories online, to listen to the radio and be reminded over and over that there are some people out to "remake" America into some twisted ideal that they seem to hold in their minds.

I can't call them conservatives, for these people are not about small government with responsible spending within means -- nor are they about respecting the privacy of citizens and leaving people to their own business. I can't call them Republicans, for there are many many Republicans just as disturbed by the present turn of events as I am. I can't call them red state people, because the people who voted red are not the ones cynically manipulating the press and hiding behind the darkest veils of secrecy in this country's modern age.

I've called them wingnuts, because they seem nuts to me, but that is perhaps rather rude. I've called them radicals, but that almost seems too kind. I've called them fascists, but I don't think that quite captures the scope of their dark vision of a "new world order."

What they do seem to be are people who truly hate America as it is right now. They mistrust the citizenry and oppose civil rights. They viciously oppose any restriction on their ability to manipulate the system to make more money for themselves and their own. They get almost rabidly vitriolic when they confront the reality of racial, ethnic, sexual and economic diversity in this country. They absolutely despise any and all programs designed to provide any sort of community safety net. They abhor notions of human rights in this world. They suppress any and all efforts and the liberation and empowerment of women, here and abroad. And they fear all the way down to their bones the Enlightenment, Reason and Science, and work with all their passion, energy and strength to destroy them to create a new vision of the world, starting right here in America.

Is there a label that captures that?

Who are these people? Why do they want to change America so much? Is America really that awful?

When I look at America, I see a great nation. The tone was set by George Washington, the man who would not be king, the man who retired after two terms and oversaw the first peaceful transfer of power. The tone was set in the Constitution of the United States of America, which codified a set of principles and rules that have allowed this country to see the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, voting rights, civil rights -- all tumultuous changes in the moral fabric of our society -- without bloody coup or government overthrow.

I see a country that embraced the freedom of people to speculate on their own futures and take risks, free of the threat of debtor's prison. I see a country that, in facing economic disaster, stood together, pooling resources so that all citizens stood together as a society, secure against the most dire costs risked with uncertainty.

I see a country that mobilized its entire economy and population to fight a war against nations that did not respect citizens' rights, built up frightening military machines, and dared to dictate to other nations how they should live. I see a nation that, after conquering dozens of nations militarily, proceeded not only to withdraw without claiming any sovereignty, but also gave blood and treasure to help those nations -- including the vanquished enemies -- rebuild from their ravages of war.

I see a country that, time and again, has faced its dark demons and changed its ways. I see a country that led the world in compassion and generosity, a country that, despite its overwhelming wealth and power, has been admired and respected all around the world.

I see a country that, when it was attacked viciously by religious fanatics, received the overwhelming sympathy and compassion and support of the entire world. Flowers in plazas and at embassies in all the capitals memorialized those killed in the attacks on America. Nations pledged their support and cooperation to help ensure that such a thing never would happen again.

And then the darkness came.

Now I see a group of people, rooted in wealth, entrenched in the corporatocracy, powerful in the government, with great influence on the media, doing everything it can to tear down these things that have made America great.

They seem to flip the cart in front of the horse, claiming not that America is great because of the great things it does, but rather they claim that America is great, therefore it can do what it wants.

They embrace and employ the use of torture, and consider human rights "quaint" and inconvenient.

They quash free speech.

They embrace "might makes right" as foreign policy doctrine.

They ignore the importance of a strong economy.

They treat the citizens of this country as the enemy.

They work to tear apart the social programs that provide the modest safety net that exists.

They seek to take away women's rights over their own bodies and their own lives.

They endeavor to destroy public education.

They make a crime not only what someone does, but what someone might do.

They do whatever is necessary to disempower minority cultures and communities in matters of elections.

...and not just a few other things, too.

And if anyone speaks up against these and the many many other outrages they perpetrate on this great nation, that person is shouted down, labeled a traitor, sued, harrassed, silenced, arrested....

They want to "fix" America, as if all this time it's been a horrible travesty of immoral and impractical developments over the decades and centuries since its founding.

Why?

I certainly can see some things that could use some fixing in this country.

Let's start with the pollution we're poisoning ourselves with.

The mysterious and mostly secret food industry that is getting away with all it can.

The paramilitary adventures upon which we've embarked in the name of political and corporate expediency (such as Honduras and Guatemala and other places in Central and South America).

The ongoing widespread poverty and institutionalized neglect of the Americans who were here before the Europeans arrived.

The richest healthcare system in the world that, nevertheless, cannot provide for 20% of the American population.

The homelessness and poverty of children that persists through even the best of economic times.

The decline in education and academic performance of our children that is taking us towards the bottom of the industrial world.

The systematic destruction of population control programs around the globe.

The infant mortality rate that is one of the worst of all industrialized nations.

The neglected nuclear waste that will remain fatally radioactive for thousands of years.

The inequality and inadequacy of our educational system that deprives millions of Americans a decent education, and deprives America of the fruits of their untapped talents.

...and not just a few other things, too.

Why ignore all these things, the real problems that real people face, and instead try to tear down the very things we were doing right, the very things that have made this country great?

Is it all about profit, at the expense of the rest of us? Is it all about power, and doing whatever it takes to hang onto it? Is it about some twisted idealistic vision of the world where faith dictates knowledge and reason is the enemy?

Am I just too much the peasant, too much the powerless, too much the rational person to appreciate this "new world order"?

Or do they really think that we won't notice? Do they think we're that stupid? Or is it really that we are that stupid?

Or has it always been like this, and I'm only noticing because there's nothing very good on TV this year? Is my "sin" simply paying attention?

I don't think I've ever been so depressed about the current state and future of my country. I don't think I've ever been so afraid for the world.